FAMOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10897, 11 October 1913, Page 1

FAMOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASES.

(*' Tit-Bits.") _ "Some men scorn to think,'' said a prominent lawyer, who lias figured as counsel in many breach ol promise notions, to the writer a short time ago, " that proposals, liko pic-crusts, are Duly made to bo broken, and they are quite pained when they lind that the peaking is, at times, a costly process." Mo was not alluding to the recent seniijicioiuil cast) -ii which Miss Dai>y Manchmn received £80,1X30, in her action which eho brought against the Marquis of Northampton for broach of promise ot marriage, but- to the scores of eases which arc- tried every year, in which damages of a few hundreds aro awarded; and ho ventured tho opinion that in tho course of twelve months defendants ill broach of promise cases have to pay as compensation for breaking women's hearts something liko £lo,ooo. Fur it must bo remembered that many recent eases involving well-known people have been settled at tho Law Courts upon terms not revealed, but presumably very substantial. NOTABLE CASES. Tho £50,000 given Miss Markham as jv solatium for tno breach is by far tho largest sum ever awarded in the English courts in such an action. In two previous broach of promise cases, howover, £IO,OOO damages were awarded. Tho first, was in IBS I, when Miss Finney, a Savoy actress, professionally known as Miss Fortescue, brought an action against Viscgunt Garmoyle, son and heir of tho great Lord Chancellor Cairns, for breach of promise. Miss Fort fescue was then twenty-five years of age, and the sum of £'lo.ooo was agreed upon between the parties when the case came before Mr Justice Alonisty. Six years later Baron Huddteston had beforo him an action for breach of promise brought by Miss Theresa Gladys Knowlcs, a young lady of twenty-one, niece of Admiral Knowles, who sued Mr Leslie Duncan, proprietor and alitor of tho " Matrimonial News," who was •sixty-four years of ago at the time. In the end tho jury ordered him to disburse £IO,OOO to the lady, who, it might ha mentioned, had claimed £26,000. PEERS AS DEFENDANTS. In tho %amo year Sir George Elliot, M.P., a man seventy-five years of ago at the time, was the defendant in an action for breach of promise brought by Miss Emily Hairs, who claimed £6OOO. After two hours' deliberation, however, the jury disagreed, and thora the case ended so far as the Courts were concerned, for it was announced shortly afterwards that the parties had come to terms. Another £IO,OOO case was tho famous Liverpool action, when at the Assizes in August, 1903, Mrs Helen Turner received this amount in damages in an action which*she brought against a wellknown Liverpool wine merchant. Members of the peerage have figured in several other notablo breach of promise actions. Viscount Dangan (afterwards Earl Cowley) had to pay £2500 in 1889 to-Miss Phyllis Broughton, while Miss Birdie Sutherland's action against the Hon Dudley Marjoribanks (afterwards Lord Tweedinouth) was settled in 1595 for £SOOO. As in the recent case, the proposed marriages between Miss Birdie Sutherland and the Hon Dudley Majoribanks, and that between Viscount Garmoyle and Miss Fortesoue, were stopped by tho activo intervention of the fathers of the young men, the payment of tho money in each case being accompanied by an expression of respect and esteem for tho lady. Mention might also be made of the £2OOO awarded against tho Duke of Manchester in an action brought by Miss Portia Knight. His Grace was sued after his marriage in 1000. Tho public were looking forward to a sensational case, when tho action was suddenly withdrawn froni the lists, a private arrangement having been effected which prevented tho case from coming into the courts. ■ Next to Miss Markham's case the record compensation paid to a lady by a titled wooer seems to be, according to Macarthur's "History of the Parish of .New Monkland, Lanarkshire, N. 8.," the £20,000 which Lord John Campbell paid in two instalments as damages for breach of promise to Miss Logan, a Lanarkshire lady, tho second £IO,OOO being paid when lie became Duke of Argyll in 1839. In this case much heavier damages wore therefore paid than in any other previous case, but they appear not to have been awarded by a jury, but voluntarily paid. One of the most sensational cases on record, however, was that in which tho ruler of a kingdom was sued for breach of promise. This occurred in 1593, when an action was brought against the Sultan of Johoro by Miss Jqnnie Mighell. That an English girl should bring such an action against an Eastern Princo seemed too incredible, but she persevered with it, so courageously thr.t the alarmed potentate declined to enter a defence beyond a declaration that as a sovereign he could not- be sued by a subject, end cccordinsly tho lady's action must fail because he was not amenable to the laws of England. Counsel on both sides fought out tho question with the greatest- zeal, but in the end the judge upheld the Sultan's

defence, nntl consequently tho original caso never ramo into tin? courts. AMERICAN RECORDS. What promises to be one of tho most sensational breach of promise actions ever tried in America is that which Miss M. A. Sullivan is bringing against a prominent Xott York man, claiming divmngos of £20,009 pud £io,ooo for maintenance under an alleged contract. The plaintiff, tho (laughter of a prominent local politician, says that when a student at Wellesley College she met tho defendant, who proposed marriage, but declared that he must postpone tho ceremony until his father's millionpound est at© was settled. Ultimately, now ever, the plaintiff, according to her story, discovered that he had married someone else, and consequently sho is bringing the action against him for the enormous sum mentioned. Hitherto tho record in tho American courts for breach of promise damages is that established by Miss Clara Campbell, daughter of a prominent Western forge-master, who some years ' ago brought an action for broach of promise against tho senior member of a New York firm of coffee merchants, and was awarded £9OOO damages.